I would suggest that you provide the committee, with a heap of questions, that the members want answered, so then they can get some answers out of board. Maybe Graeme Wade, Richard Petty etc will along with their lawyers, will actually answer some questions. Maybe they will blame Alex Malley, because they relied on the information that he supplied to them, or just blame Adam Awty and Jeff Hughes?

.
fair dinkum,
it's hard to believe they didn't see anything wrong with anything they did, expect with one or two items and then only with the benefit of hindsight. I didn't hear any mention of why the NBL couldn't find a corporate sponsor, and had to resort to fleecing us. The explanation of the changes to board election procedures ten years ago was unadulterated crap. How many actually understood what the amendments meant ...

Where can we read a transcript of the entire proceedings? I want to run through it again and remind myself it was real; and not a dream or nightmare.

I've just finished watching a replay of the Senate Estimates Hearing.
First point: I'm astonished at myself because I REALLY ADMIRED the work of the Senators in that hearing.
2nd point: I'm soooo disappointed in (what I perceive to be) obfuscation and evasion by Messrs Dickson, Hughes and Youngberry.
3rd point: "CPA Board" was used as a shield to avoid answering the questions from the Senators.
Today is the day, that I'm taking the next step in pursuing membership of an alternative professional body....with sadness, too.

My first reaction was also to jump ship. I've come to belief now that so much work has been done by Brett, Jen and many others that I have to stay. Other organisations are really just wanting our membership dollar. I think we should hang in and hope that the effort has been worth it.

My first reaction was also to jump ship. I've come to belief now that so much work has been done by Brett, Jen and many others that I have to stay. Other organisations are really just wanting our membership dollar. I think we should hang in and hope that the effort has been worth it.

I'm staying, if nothing else but to make sure these entitled fucks who took us all for a ride get what they deserve.

'We did the right thing': chairman Jim Dickson defends CPA board and Alex Malley
by Edmund Tadros
At least he said sorry at the start.

CPA Australia Chairman Jim Dickson has belatedly apologised to members of the embattled accounting body for a "particularly challenging" period that has seen CEO Alex Malley fired with a $4.9 million payout and the entire board resign or announce they would leave by the end of the year.

But after that brief apology before a Senate economics committee, Mr Dickson then spent the next hour-and-a-half justifying the conduct of the CPA board during the past few months.

A defiant Mr Dickson went into detail about how successful the body's marketing strategy had been and continues to be, defended the conduct and legacy of Mr Malley and reiterated that holding this year's annual general meeting in Singapore had been the correct decision.

It was an extraordinary performance that showed Mr Dickson continues to believe he and the remaining board have done nothing wrong despite overseeing an implosion at the nation's largest accounting body.
'Effective marketing strategy'

He did concede that, perhaps, the board's communication with members could have been a little better.

"What I've learned since taking over the job some 98 days ago, not that I'm counting, is we need to communicate better with our members," Mr Dickson said. "We need to involve our divisions, particularly our divisional councils and presidents in setting our strategy so that they got a form of ownership of it. And I think with our marketing, we need to explain our marketing strategy better to our divisions and to our members. I believe our marketing strategy was extremely effective."

CPA's marketing strategy, which cost members in the tens of millions a year, had centered around Mr Malley, the television show In Conversation with Alex Malley and Mr Malley's autobiography The Naked CEO. Since firing Mr Malley, the accounting body has completely stripped Mr Malley's presence from its website and rebranded The Naked CEO website as Career Mentor.

Mr Dickson denied that the money had been wasted and defended the value of having celebrity guests such as Henry Winkler, who portrayed Fonzie in the US sitcom Happy Days, on the TV show.

"It broadens the audience of the organisation," Mr Dickson said, "It [helps] the organisation to continue to grow. It provides employment opportunities for our members because CPA becomes more well known throughout the business community with all our stakeholders."
Mr Malley an 'outstanding leader'

The public hearing, in Canberra on Tuesday afternoon, was part of an examination of Corporations Act updates to compel companies to store and then provide the email addresses of their membership base to members who ask for it. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Nick Xenophon, was inspired by rebel CPA member Brett Stevenson's battle with CPA to get a list of member contacts to share his concerns about the way the CPA is run.

Senators had been unhappy at the responses of CPA representatives last month and demanded the board appear and answer questions. Mr Dickson appeared, alongside CPA directors Graeme Wade and Tim Youngberry, while two more directors, Sharon Portelli and Michele Dolin, dialed into the hearing.

In one of the many tense exchanges, Mr Dickson said that Mr Malley has built been performing well when he was fired by the board.

Senator Xenophon: "So [Mr Malley] was doing well. He was an outstanding leader. But you still had to get rid of him. Is that what you're saying?":

Mr Dickson: "Yes."

Senator Xenophon: "That kind of doesn't make sense to me. If he was doing so well why would you get rid of him?"

Mr Dickson: "The feedback we had from our members, other stakeholders, in that changed circumstances were that it was in the interests of the organisation going forward to terminate Mr Malley."

Mr Dickson admitted that Mr Malley's $4.9 million termination payout, three times his annual base salary, had been in his contract but took on notice questions about when and why the clause had been inserted.

The chairman also claimed CPA's annual general meeting, which caused an uproar among members when it was held in Singapore, had been a great success.

Senator Jane Hume asked why the AGM wasn't moved back to Australia once the board knew about the issues raised by rebel member Mr Stevenson and others.

Mr Dickson replied that changing the venue back to Australia would have "been an affront to our very important Singapore members".
Advice losses planned for

Fellow CPA director Mr Wade also revealed that the business plan for the loss-making CPA Australia Advice business showed it was "going to be a five or six year project."

"t's a very carefully thought out strategy that will produce significant benefits for the public interest and those consumers of financial planning," Mr Wade told the committee.

The advice business generated $46,000 in income losing $5.7 million in 2016, according to documents filed with ASIC. In total, the subsidiary has lost a cumulative $7.4 million in its first 19 months of operations and has drawn down more than $12 million of a $20 million unsecured loan from CPA. At this rate of losses, it is unclear how the operation can continue to operate beyond next year.

The financial advice business has also created a legal conflict of interest that will mean public practice CPAs around the country will lose their legal shield from multimillion-dollar lawsuits from October 8.

Mr Dickson perhaps summed up the vast gulf between the board on one side and the unhappy membership and Senators on the other side, when he noted at the start of the hearing: "We have acted in accordance with the CPA Australia Constitution and the law at all times. But we recognise it as a dichotomy between the record what members expected of us."

Have watched the Senate Committee with Jim Dickson and Graeme Wade, it was clear that Graeme Wade appeared to be the individual with all the answers. Mr Dickson, appeared to have have a limited knowledge of what was happening at CPA Australia, until he became CPA President. So what happened in the previous six years that he was on the board? He did not appear to know the answers to questions about how much the Naked CEO program made, when the contract with Alex Malley was entered into nor how much was being spend on the Australian Open or on the "In Conversation" program. I find this hard to believe. Where is Get Smart when you need him.

It was interesting that no matter how many times Mr Dickson was asked about the contract entered into with Mr Malley, and when this contract was entered into, that he did not know the answer. Again the man with all the answers was Graeme Wade. I think it is very important to for this contract with Alex Malley to be disclose to the members of CPA Australia, to find out the truth about this payout figure and terms and conditions of this agreement.

Graeme Wade, did acknowledge his close association with Alex Malley, and does know the answer to a lot of the questions that members want to know, but keeps trying to hide behind the non-disclosure line or confidentiality. CPA Australia is a Not-For Profit, so why not disclosure this important information to the members, when the members have asked numerous times how much was spent on the Australian Open Sponsorship.

Graeme Wade also indicated that the support of the AGM has been very poor in the past years, when held in Melbourne, and the AGM in Singapore was a great success. Wait a minute, he has been on the board since 2006, and was the President/Chairman, and has been very active in the management of CPA Australia, along with Alex Malley and Richard Petty. So why did the board not come up with any other ideas to encourage younger members to attend, or use internet technology to enable more members from interstate to watch or participate? Why did they have to wait for general members to make suggestions about getting more members involved at the AGM. Maybe because the CPA board didn't want the members to take part, because then they could do what they wanted with very little involvement of the general members. This lack of openness of the CPA board enabled the board to change the CPA Constitution to the benefit of this small Graeme Wade team. It was reported by other members on this site, that the change of the CPA constitution, was only successful, due the proxy votes that the board had, as the members in attendance as this AGM voted against the change. Again Graeme Wade has put a spin on the truth. Mr Wade did say that he did not vote on the NBL Sponsorship at either the CPA or at the NBL and had no idea of the contract. So why sponsor the NBL and the Australia Open?? This does not clearly have anything to do with what the CPA stands for. It May be in the benefit of Mr Wade as Chairman of the NBL. He did indicate that he wished that the sponsorship did not happen. Really Mr Wade? I am sure alot of the members got a real benefit of the direct link from the video streaming of the NBL games and the advertising of the CPA brand? So Mr Wade, what is the CPA brand??????? It appears that the CPA brand is a business of education, like a uni or TAFE. It does not appear to be about accounting, but making money from selling education courses.

Mr Dickson and Mr Wade responded to questions of why they did not provide enough notice of the AGM at Singapore to the members. The answer was simply because the law only required them to give that minimum standard of notice. Well Mr Dickson, l would argue that the law indicates that you must provide at least a minimum 28 days notice, but does not indicate you can not provide further notice of the AGM. This simply was just telling the Senate Committee, that CPA Australia did the minimum to comply with the law. This does not send a great message to the younger members of CPA Australia.

Mr Dickson and Mr Wade, were asked about the number of questions put to the board before the AGM and the number that the board answered. Mr Dickson had no idea of how many questions were answered, but did highlight that certain questions were answered in the Chairman's address to the members at the AGM. Yes this is correct, but not all questions that were put to the board for the AGM were answered by CPA Australia directly to the members. The AGM process is a joke. Members only are able to answer 4 questions and that is if the Chairman wants to answer the questions. It is also clear, that CPA Australia has advised the members that all questions put to the board at the AGM would be reported to the members via the website. Can not find it any where on the website and do not believe that they did answer the questions. Brett has, along with other members put questions to the board in prior years, which they had not responded to in writing after the AGM or put up on the CPA Australia website. It is clear that the system is place is skewed in favour of the board. The members of CPA Australia have no ability to vote for or against a resolution, but have to appoint a proxy individual, who has to attend the AGM to use those votes. Then that proxy can only use a limited number of proxies for the vote. This system is wrong and would argue in favour of the board, who can use proxy votes return to them. There is no review of the auditor's report, nor a presentation to the members by the auditor. Their is no presentation to the members of the remunerations paid to the director members and senior management team. The remuneration is not clearly detailed to the members as does listed companies. Again this is because as the CPA Australia keep reminding the members and the Senate Committee, the law does not require them to disclose it to the members, so they do not. If the law required further details, and more detailed financial reporting, then CPA Australia would do that. Unfortunately an organisation which says it is a leader in the accounting field, it is just a follower of the law, and produces minimal financial reports which basically comply with the minimal standards set out under the law.

There so so many questions which Graeme Wade, Richard Petty, Michele Dolin and Jim Dickson will never answer, but the members need to get answers too. In the best interest of the accounting profession, the fight for detailed financial accounts, detailed remuneration reports, better AGM and better accountability needs to continue.

.I watched the whole thing again last night. I lost track of the number of times Dickson and Wade were unable to answer questions, and had to take them on notice.

The reasons they stated for not calling an EGM and not handing out email addresses was pathetic obfuscation. Furthermore, Dickson was unable to think of one instance where CPA could send an email to the membership at large on behalf of a member or a group of members, not one: "We can't do it every time someone asks" or "Where do you draw the line" was his considered response (or words to that effect). He didn't think was an appropriate instance: 7 of the 12 board members resigned, and the CEO was sacked. As far as he was concerned, there can never be, in the history of mankind, an instance where a board can send out an email to the membership at large on behalf of a member or group of members.

Wade was evasive when queried about the NBL sponsorship, and completely absolved himself of any responsibility or involvement. How about this, Mr Wade: Why did the NBL approach CPAA for sponsorship? Was the NBL rejected by all of the corporates it approached? If you don't know the answer, who does?

They simply refused to acknowledge they were pissing our money down a drain.

For those of us who missed it, please watch the replay (the link is above in the post by JWheldon at 6:16pm), and then answer this question -- Re the conduct of the three directors, who showed up -- Was that conduct unbecoming of a director at a professional NFP association?

Let keep going. We still deserve an apologies from the Board and Senior Management. But most importantly we want each one of those board members and senior management to be hold accountable. Who here is thinking to jump ship. My suggestion is to think twice, Deloitte has been CPA Australia auditors and surely they never flagged anything to us nor do they want to be hold accountable for screwing things up. At least we CPA members that stand for the fight have integrity. We will see light at the end of the tunnel. The board think by stepping down they will be off the hook. Not at all, we will demand the new board to bring transparency and hold them accountable for damaging the brand and the designation. I was shocked that many of the questions as the president dickson could not answer or does not know how the association was going. How do you endorsed something without the fine details. Yet he take a fat pay package but doesn't give a toss about the details. After all those years as a board member he should know those details very well. What the heck was timbo doing there!!